Greetings from the AI-ProgSchedule Team, today we were reading the Computer Machinery and Intelligence, written by Allan Turing, the father of computer science.This writing leads us to pose some questions such as: what does being intelligent means? what is the difference between a human and a computer? can machines think?
Let’s just summarize the introduction of Allan Turing by quoting the description of his Imitation Game:
It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) whom may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman […] We now ask the question , “What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game ? ” Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?
The article and the general opinion proposes some potential objections against the artificial intelligence search, they say that there are several human skills impossible to be replicated by a computer; distinguishing good from evil or loving for instance. In fact, we believe that the most difficult part to mimic is that of our feelings and emotions, we humans do stupid things while machines would never lose their logic sense.
As machines may not be able to feel -and act illogically as consequence of that- we would have to program their behaviour, the problem would then depend on our understanding of ourselves…
We can add some other doubts like how would a computer pass a psychological test? would we detect any characteristic such as egoism or altruism? How would a machine relate cognitive abstractions like shapes with colours? What about pattern recognition? Would the computer figure out a shape in a spot? a constellation?
The article was written in 1950, in it, Turing predicted that by 2000 a computer should have a 30% chance of passing a Turing Test 5 minutes with an average interrogator. We are considering that in 2015, in the era of instant communications, we are not so far from what we predicted, we believe it is very likely that there is already a machine that pass these tests.
It seems that regardless of technological advances, there still exist objections against artificial intelligence, even considering a half-century of distance between the author of this and that article. Beliefs and a growing paranoia of an invasion never stops being fashionable.
Technology evolves so fast that it also annoys some economic and social factors, factors that may add to the refusal of developing an intelligence comparable to ours; a kinda flashback to what happened back in the Industrial Revolution times.
In the end we concluded that the knowledge we have is not yet definitive and it would be a very interesting challenge to build an intelligence that works to fulfil the experiment. It requires a multidisciplinary team work… In a broader sense this would also helps us to know ourselves. What about you readers think?